CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT OF FAMILY FARMERS IN THE BRAZILIAN SEMIARID: AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC POLICIES AND OF
THE COEXISTING WITH THE SEMIARID PARADIGM
Letícia Wittlin Machado
Tese de Doutorado apresentada ao Programa de Pós-graduação em Planejamento Energético, COPPE, da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, como parte dos requisitos necessários à obtenção do título de Doutor em Planejamento Energético.
Orientador: Emílio Lèbre La Rovere
Rio de Janeiro Março de 2018
THE BRAZILIAN SEMIARID: AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC POLICIES AND OF THE COEXISTING WITH THE SEMIARID PARADIGM
Letícia Wittlin Machado
TESE SUBMETIDA AO CORPO DOCENTE DO INSTITUTO ALBERTO LUIZ COIMBRA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO E PESQUISA DE ENGENHARIA (COPPE) DA UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO DE JANEIRO COMO PARTE DOS REQUISITOS NECESSÁRIOS PARA A OBTENÇÃO DO GRAU DE DOUTOR EM CIÊNCIAS EM PLANEJAMENTO ENERGÉTICO.
Examinada por:
________________________________________________ Prof. Emílio Lèbre La Rovere, D.Sc.
________________________________________________ Prof. Christovam Barcellos, D.Sc.
________________________________________________ Prof. Marcos Aurélio Vasconcelos de Freitas, D.Sc.
________________________________________________ Prof. Michelle Cristina Sampaio, D.Sc.
________________________________________________ Prof. Antônio Marcos Muniz Carneiro, D.Sc.
RIO DE JANEIRO, RJ – BRASIL MARÇO DE 2018
Machado, Letícia Wittlin
Climate Change Resilient Development of Family Farmers in the Brazilian Semiarid: An Analysis of Public Policies and of the Coexisting with the Semiarid paradigm / Letícia Wittlin Machado. – Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/COPPE, 2018.
XV, 161 p.: il.; 29,7 cm.
Orientador: Emílio Lèbre La Rovere
Tese (doutorado) – UFRJ/ COPPE/ Programa de Planejamento Energético, 2018.
Referências Bibliográficas: p.116- 133.
1. Social-ecological system. 2. Sertão. 3. Climate change. 4. Social technologies. 5. Tradicional technologies. 6. Vulnerability I. La Rovere, Emílio Lèbre. II. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, COPPE, Programa de Planejamento Energético. III. Título.
A todos que considero minha família. Em especial à minha avó Zilmar Cintra Wittlin (in memoriam) e ao meu grande amigo, Pedro Sangirardi Duarte (in memoriam).
“Wins the battle who can stand five more minutes” (vence a batalha quem aguenta mais cinco minutos) Maria Luiza Pernambuco Machado, minha avó
I thank my mother, Ana Lúcia Cintra Wittlin, my grandmother Zilmar Cintra Wittlin (in memorian), my grandfather Wilson Lopes Machado and my grandmother Maria Luiza Pernambuco Machado (in memorian) for all their love and support in all my decisions. A very special thanks to my father, Paulo Pernambuco Machado, who found the (long) time and pacience to review my thesis and help me through tough times. I could not do it without him.
My former husband and dearest friend, Guilherme Therezo Nascimento, was fundamental during the course of this work in so many ways that I can not describe.
I wish to thank my friends from the PhD course, specially Isabela Oliveira, Amanda Aragão, Orleno Marques and Fernanda Malta.
I thank Amanda Silvino for the elaboration of Figure 9, “Delimitation of the Caatinga biome, BSA and the Northeast region of Brazil”.
I am also thankful to Frederico Henning for the helpful comments and suggestions. Professor Helen Ross, from University of Queesnland, also deserves my acknowledgment.
I am very thankful to the interviewees who provided the information on the strengths and adversities of our beautiful and miscompreehended Brazilian Semiarid region.
At last, I appreciate the CNPq financial support and the advices of my supervisor, Emílio La Rovere, which made this PhD possible.
a obtenção do grau de Doutor em Ciências (D.Sc.)
DESENVOLVIMENTO RESILIENTE ÀS MUDANÇAS CLIMÁTICAS PARA AGRICULTORES FAMILIARES NO SEMIÁRIDO BRASILEIRO: UMA ANÁLISE
DAS POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS E DO PARADIGMA DE CONVIVÊNCIA COM O SEMIÁRIDO
Letícia Wittlin Machado Março/2018
Orientador: Emílio Lèbre la Rovere Programa: Planejamento Energético
A região semiárida brasileira abriga a população mais desfavorecida economicamente do país e um dos dois biomas mais vulneráveis às mudanças climáticas no Brasil. Políticas públicas para a região estiveram concentradas nas secas, porém, a sociedade civil começou a buscar alternativas para enfrentar os desafios complexos da região, focada em soluções mais holísticas para a convivência humana com as condições semiáridas a partir da década de 1980. Esta tese analisa as políticas públicas para o semiárido durante três períodos históricos e o paradigma liderado pela sociedade civil, Convivência com o Semiárido (CSA), para verificar se eles promoveram resiliência às mudanças climáticas para os agricultores familiares. A pesquisa segue um quadro teórico de sistemas sócio-ecológicos e resiliência, e tem como metodologia análise de documentos, trabalho de campo e entrevistas. Os resultados da pesquisa indicam que as políticas públicas recentes contribuíram para a melhoria das condições de vida dos agricultores familiares e enfrentamento dos impactos das secas, mas não promoveram substancialmente resiliência às mudanças climáticas. Portanto, as conquistas obtidas através de políticas públicas estão em risco, uma vez que as mudanças no clima criam novas condições ambientais e econômicas. A CSA aumenta a resiliência climática dos agricultores familiares aplicando tecnologias sociais através de uma abordagem participativa, construindo conhecimento local e promovendo o uso sustentável dos recursos. No entanto, esses resultados apenas aparecem quando várias atividades são combinadas. A CSA foca na sociedade civil e não na esfera governamental como agente fundamental de transformação.
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Science (D.Sc.)
CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT OF FAMILY FARMERS IN THE BRAZILIAN SEMIARID: AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC POLICIES AND OF
THE COEXISTING WITH THE SEMIARID PARADIGM
Letícia Wittlin Machado
March/2018
Advisor: Emílio Lèbre la Rovere Department: Energy Planning
The Brazilian Semiarid region comprises the poorest people in the country, and one of the two biomes most vulnerable to climate change in Brazil. Public policies have been focused on droughts, but a more organized and articulated civil society in the 1980´s started to seek alternatives to addressing the complex challenges in the region, focusing on more holistic solutions for human coexistence with the Semiarid conditions. This thesis analyses public policies during three historical periods and the civil society-led paradigm Convivência com o Semiárido (CSA, Coexisting with the Semiarid) to verify if they promoted resilience to climate change for family farmers. The research follows a theoretical framework of Social-Ecological Systems and Resilience Thinking, and uses document analysis, fieldwork and interviews. It was found that recent public policies have assisted family farmers to improve living conditions and face droughts impacts, but they have not substantially promoted climate change resilience. Therefore, achievements gained through public policies are at risk, as the changes in climate create new environmental and economic conditions. Concurrently, CSA increases family farmers` climate resilience by applying social technologies through a participatory approach, building local knowledge and promoting the sustainable use of resources. In accordance to resilience theory, CSA is a social process with the potential to drive transformational change, which can be sustained into the future. It only succeeds, however, when several activities are combined. It focuses on civil society rather than the government sphere as pivotal agent of transformation.
List of tables ...xi
List of Figures ...xi
APPENDIX ... xii
List of Acronyms ... xiii
1 Introduction ... 1
1.1 Presentation of the subject and introduction to the problem... 1
1.2 Objective ... 4 1.3 General assumption ... 4 1.4 Methodology ... 5 1.5 Thesis Framework ... 9 1.6 Contributions to Knowledge ... 10 2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ... 12
2.1 Northeast, the Sertão and the Semiarid area ... 12
2.2 Semiarid and social ecological systems ... 16
2.3 Resilience ... 21
2.3.1 Concept debate ... 21
2.3.2 Climate change resilience and adaptation in social-ecological systems ... 24
2.4 Traditional technologies X Social technologies ... 26
2.5 A Brief description of a paradigm ... 28
3 THE BRAZILIAN SEMIARID REGION: SOCIAL AND CLIMATIC CHARACTERIZATION ... 29
3.1 General aspects of all Semiarid lands ... 29
3.2 Sertão before colonization ... 33
3.3 Social and economic characterization ... 35
3.4 Ecological characterization ... 40
3.5 Constraints ... 44
3.5.1 Climatic and environmental vulnerability ... 44
3.5.2 Political constraints ... 46
3.6 Strengths of the Sertão ... 48
3.6.1 The Caatinga dry forest: eco-systemic services, medicinal use and products of the socio-biodiversity ... 48
3.6.2 Tourism ... 52
4.2 Contextualization: Construction of knowledge (1849-77) ... 57
4.3 Hydraulic construction phase (1877-1958) ... 58
4.4 Regional development (1959-1991) ... 60
4.5 Towards a more sustainable development: relative power decentralization and social safety mechanisms (1992- 2010) ... 62
4.6 An update of the water reservoirs in the BSA- 2013- 2017 ... 67
5 SOCIAL MOBILIZATION: COEXISTING WITH THE SEMIARID ... 68
5.1 Coexisting with the Semiarid trajectory, obstacles and successes ... 68
5.2 Guidelines, Projects and Coexisting solutions ... 69
6 DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE SERTÃO ... 73
6.1 The Debate on Development ... 74
6.2 Climate Change and Development ... 80
6.3 Models of Development in the Sertão: The Agro-industrial model X Climate-compatible development strategies (Coexisting with the Semiarid)... 82
7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 87
7.1 Interviews and Fieldwork through a Participatory Approach ... 87
7.2 Limitations of Public Policies ... 88
7.3 Overcoming limitations ... 99
7.4 Increasing Resilience: social mobilization and beyond ... 103
7.5 Implications for other Semiarid regions ... 108
8 CONCLUSION ... 110
Table 1- Geostrategic Areas of the Northeast Semiarid: Basic Data ... 14
Table 2- The BSA According to the SES Model Found in Figure 5 ... 20
Table 3. Geographical Distribution of the Brazilian Population and the Brazilian Population living in extreme poverty, 2010 ... 36
Table 4- Main achievements by DNOCS and partners between 1909–2013 ... 66
Table 5- Solutions, systems, activities and achievements of the coexistence with the Semiarid ... 71
List of Figures Figure 1- The Brazilian Semiarid delimitation according to Sudene, 2017 ... 2
Figure 2- Interviews divided by sectors ... 7
Figure 3- PDSA Geostrategic units: Sertão do Norte, Ribeira do São Francisco and Sertão do Sul. ... 14
Figure 4- PDSA Development sub-regions: Sertão do Piauí, Sertão do Apodi, Sertão do Araripe, Sertão de Borborema, Ribeira do Médio São Francisco, Ribeira do Submédio São Francisco, Ribeira do Baixo São Francisco, Sertão de Canudos, and Sertão de Contas ... 15
Figure 5- People in Social-Ecological Systems ... 17
Figure 6- A Conceptual Model of a SES ... 19
Figure 7. Arid lands in the world ... 29
Figure 8- Family and non-family farmers land distribution ... 39
Figure 9- Delimitation of the Caatinga biome, BSA and the Northeast region of Brazil ... 41
Figure 10- Semiarid land state-of-art ... 42
Figure 11- Ecosystem services and human well-being ... 49
Figure 12- COOPERCUC–Cooperativa Agropecuária Familiar de Canudos, Uauá e Curaçá ... 50
Figure 13- Embrapa instructions for processing passion fruit ... 50
Figure 14- Caatinga resource for medicinal use ... 52
Figure 15- Vale dos Mestre archaeological site, Canindé de São Francisco, Alto Sertão de Sergipe, Brazil ... 55
Figure 16- Vale dos Mestre archaeological site, Canindé de São Francisco, Alto Sertão de Sergipe, Brazil ... 55
Figure 17- Railroad of the Ceará State, built by IFOCS ... 59
Figure 18- CSA seminar, 2016 ... 141
Figure 19- Products of a BSA cooperative, 2016 ... 147
Figure 20- Visit to the Bananeira farm, BSA, and the workshop group, 2016 ... 147
Figure 21- Local cistern, Jacaré-Curituba settlement, BSA, 2016 ... 148
Figure 22- Lunch preparation with products of the Caatinga, Centro Xingó, BSA, 2016 ... 148
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1- Detailed Semi-structured interviews ... 134
APPENDIX 2- Unsystematic observation ... 136
APPENDIX 3- Individual participatory observation ... 136
APPENDIX 4- Interviews summed-up ... 137
APPENDIX 5- Several Delimitations of the BSA ... 138
APPENDIX 6- Workers, Area, Establishments, Area with Irrigation Systems, Establishments with Irrigation Systems, Workers Family-related to the Producer ... 139
APPENDIX 7- Funding in Family Farming ... 139
APPENDIX 8- Differences between Combating the Droughts and the CSA Approach ... 140
APPENDIX 9- Coexisting with the Semiarid and Social Technologies Seminar 141 APPENDIX 10- “Coexisting with the Semiarid” workshop ……….. 145
APPENDIX 11- 2010-2016 Drought in the Brazilian Semiarid Seminar ………. 150
APPENDIX 12- Productive Coexistence with the Drought: Technological Solutions and Strategies of Action Seminar……….. 160
ADENE Agência de Desenvolvimento do Nordeste Northeast Development Agency
ANA Agência Nacional de Águas National Water Agency
APA Área de Proteção Ambiental Environmental Protection Areas
AR4 Quarto relatório de avaliação Fourth Assessment Report ASA Articulação Nacional do Semiárido National Articulation of the Semiarid
ATER Assistência Técnica e Extensão
Rural
Technical Assistance and Rural Extension
BNB Banco do Nordeste Northeast Bank
BSA Semiárido Brasileiro Brazilian Semiarid region
CBD
Convenção Sobre Diversidade Biológica/ Convenção da Biodiversidade Convention on Biological Diversity CODEVASF Companhia de
Desenvolvimento dos Vales do São Francisco e do Parnaíba
San Francisco Valley Development Company
CGEE Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos
Center for Strategic Studies and Management in Science,
Technology and Innovation CONVIVER Programa de. Desenvolvimento. Integrado e
Sustentável do Semi-Árido
Integrated Actions for Co-existence with the Semiarid
COP 3 Conferência das Partes Third Session of the UN Conference of Parties Against Desertification
CSA Convivência com o Semiárido Coexisting with the Semiarid
DNOCS Departamento Nacional de
Obras Contra as Secas
National Department of Work Against Drought
ECLA Comissão Econômica para a América Latina (CEPAL) (United Nations) Economic Commission for Latin America EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuária
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation
FHC Fernando Henrique Cardoso
FNE Fundo Constitucional de Financiamento do Nordeste Northeast Constitutional Financing Fund
FUNCEME
Fundação Cearense de Meteorologia e Recursos Hídricos
Ceará Foundation of Meteorology and Water Resources
FUNDAJ Fundação Joaquim Nabuco Joaquim Nabuco Foundation
GDP Produto Interno Bruto Gross domestic product
GTDN Grupo de Trabalho para o
Desenvolvimento do Nordeste
Working Group for the Northeast Development IABS Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento e Sustentabilidade Brazilian Institute of
ICID Conferência Internacional: Clima, Sustentabilidade e Desenvolvimento em Regiões Semiáridas International Conference on Impacts of Climate Variations and Sustainable Development in Semiarid Regions
IFOCS Inspetoria Federal de Obras
contra as Secas
Federal Work Inspection Sector Against the Drought
IHGB Instituto Histórico e Geográfico Brasileiro
Brazilian Geographic and Historic Institute
INCRA Instituto Nacional de
Colonização e Reforma Agrária
National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform
INSA Instituto Nacional do Semiárido National Institute of the (Brazilian) Semiarid (region)
IOCS Inspetoria de Obras Contra as
Secas
Work Inspection Sector Against the Drought
IPCC Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRPAA Instituto Regional da Pequena Agropecuária Apropriada Appropriate Regional Small Farmers' Institute
MCT Ministério da Ciência e
Tecnologia
Ministry of Science and Technology
MI Ministério da Integração Ministry of Integration
MST Movimento dos Trabalhadores
Rurais sem Terra Landless Workers’ Movement
NGO Organização não Governamental Non Governmental Organization P1+2 Programa Uma Terra e Duas Águas One Land, Two Waters Program
P1MC Programa Um Milhão de
Cisternas One Million Cisterns Program
PAA Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos Food Acquisition Program
PAPP Programa de Apoio ao Pequeno
Produtor Rural no Nordeste
Small Rural Producers Support Program
PDRSS Plano de Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável e Solidário Sustainable and Solidarity Rural Development Plan
PDSA Plano Estratégico de Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Semi-Árido
Semiarid Sustainable
Development Strategic Plan PNDR Política Nacional de Desenvolvimento Regional National Policy for Regional Development
POLONORDESTE
Programa de Desenvolvimento de Áreas integradas do
Nordeste
Northeast Integrated Areas Development Program
Projeto Sertanejo
Programa Especial de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento da Região Semi-Árida do Nordeste
Special Program to Support the Development of the
Familiar Family Agriculture
PRONI Programa Nacional de Irrigação National Irrigation Program
PROTERRA
Programa de Redistribuicão de Terras e de Estímulo à Agro-indústria do Norte e do Nordeste
Land Redistribution Program to Encourage North-Northeast Agriculture
RIO-92
Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre o Meio Ambiente e o Desenvolvimento
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development SUDENE Superintendência de Desenvolvimento do Nordeste Superintendence for the Development of the Northeast
UNCCD
Convenção das Nações Unidas para o Combate à
Desertificação e Mitigação dos Efeitos das Secas
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and Mitigating the Effects of Drought
UNCED
Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre o Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento (Cnumad)
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNEP Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio Ambiente (PNUMA)
United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC Convenção-Quadro das Nações Unidas sobre a Mudança do Clima
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WCA Países da África Ocidental West African Countries
1
Introduction
1.1 Presentation of the subject and introduction to the problem
The Brazilian Semiarid (BSA) region known as the Sertão is located in the Northeast part of the country (Figure 1) and is one of the two areas1 most affected by climate change in
Brazil (NOBRE, LAPOLA, et al., 2007; SEDDON, MACIAS-FAURIA, et al., 2016). The Sertão is characterized by the unique Caatinga biome - mostly consisting in deciduous forests, with uneven rainfall patterns and land distribution, climatic variation and social disparities. Several public policies have been adopted since 1877 to address the issues of the region, predominantly related to water scarcity; yet, the Sertão remains marginalized. Family farmers are the area’s most vulnerable social group, in particular diffuse farmers.
Legend: ---- BSA ---- Sudene operation area
Figure 1- The Brazilian Semiarid delimitation according to Sudene, 2017
Source: Modified by Sudene (2017)
The BSA comprises various political, cultural, social, environmental and economic aspects characterized by the modern-traditional duality (MACHADO e SILVINO, 2017). Its landscape includes fertile oases such as the floodplains (várzeas) of the São Francisco river, as well as areas in the process of desertification in the backlands of the Inhamuns, Ceará (OLIVEIRA, 2008). An active agroindustry is progressively setting up in the
plateaus; concomitantly, small plots of cattle and goats are found in the country depressions where crystalline soils allow little availability of water resources (SOUZA, 2006). The ecosystems present in the BSA are responsible for supplying a range of services that underpin productive human activities (PAGANO e ARAÚJO, 2011), nevertheless, dry tropical vegetations are usually underestimated. They are usually considered unproductive, a smaller source of natural resources when compared to other biomes and ecosystems (ALBUQUERQUE e ANDRADE, 2002).
The Sertão and other Semiarid regions around the world are part of the priority conservation areas for climate change adaptation, called hotspots, due to its natural arid climate and soil and for hosting social and economically vulnerable smallholder farmers (IPCC, 2007). Those sites are under extreme climatic and edaphic environmental conditions. Desertification and other climate change impacts in the Sertão are grounded on these conditions and on the development model prevalent in Brazil, characterized by unsustainable natural resource consumption, income and resource concentration (ARTICULAÇÃO SEMIÁRIDO BRASILEIRO (ASA); INSTITUTO NACIONAL DO SEMIÁRIDO (INSA/MCTI), 2015). Power and wealth accumulation in the hands of the local oligarchies had a pivotal role in forging poverty and life conditions of the region (FURTADO, 1959). Notwithstanding, policies are based on the premise that low economic and social development in the Sertão is the result of water shortage and therefore they have focused on measures to counter droughts (SILVA, 2007; CAMPOS, 2014).
Even though the BSA is a region of natural and social contrasts, the predominant feature displayed is that of droughts. They appear as a social tragedy due to a natural phenomenon, from which derived the socio-political construction of the BSA and forged an ideological resource that consolidated the national image of the Sertão (CASTRO I, 1997). In it, droughts in the Northeast become a reference that symbolically represents a region of adverse nature responsible for the socio-economic problems of the BSA and creating a socially homogenizing political imaginary, employed by the local elite (MACHADO e SILVINO, 2017).
Despite natural challenges found in its soil and limited water availability, most adversities that determine low levels of socio-economic development are related to inadequate access
to resources, framing the vulnerable structure in which family farmers are found. Increased frequency and magnitude of extreme climatic events - as a result of climate change - are expected to exacerbate these adversities and worsen the conditions for family farmers.
Civil society disagreement with public policies targeted to the Semiarid region has resulted in society`s engagement in presenting alternatives to achieve better conditions of life. They conceived guidelines for living in the BSA that resulted in the Coexisting with the Semiarid (CSA) paradigm.
1.2 Objective
This study revises public policies from 1877 to 2010 in the Brazilian Semiarid region to understand whether they have promoted social-ecological resilience to climate change for family farmers. It also reviews the alternative civil society-led paradigm Coexisting with the Semiarid, its guidelines and activities, to analyse whether they promote climate change resilience. Moreover, it seeks to (1) demonstrate family farmer´s vulnerability to climate change; (2) expose natural and political constraints in the Semiarid region; and (3)- bring to light the different realms of resilience - social, economic and environmental – which constitute climate change resilience.
Therefore, our research questions were: (1) Have public policies from the three analyzed periods (1877-1958/ 1959-1991/ 1992-2010) promoted social-ecological resilience to climate change of family farmers?; (2) What aspects are incorporated in climate change resilience?- considering that climate change does not act on farmers in isolation (ELUM, MODISE e MARR, 2016); (3) How is the CSA model inserted in this context?
1.3 General assumption
Our underlying thesis assumption is that the Brazilian governmental policies adopted in the Semiarid region have not been sufficient to ensure climate change resilience for family farmers.
1.4 Methodology
To carry out this research, the first step was to review primary data and literature on public policies for the BSA. From there, three distinct public policy periods named: Hydraulic construction phase (1877-1958), Regional development ( 1959-1991) and Towards a more sustainable development (1992-2010) have emerged according to their strategies for the Semiarid region (ANDRADE, 1970; CARVALHO, 1988; MAGALHAES e GLANTZ, 1992; MI, 2005; CAMPOS, 2014) MI (2005). Next step was an analysis of the assumptions and strategies, observing breaches, continuity, positive results and possible flaws of public policies.
In this process, two expressions were frequently found: “combating the droughts” and “coexisting with the Semiarid”. “Combating the droughts” was associated to public policies and advertised as the solution (“combating”) to the issues present in the BSA (“the droughts”); coexistence solutions with the Semiarid conditions regards a parcel of civil society that disagrees with the mentality and solutions for the BSA promoted by the government. These differences allowed to identify the different interpretations of “Semiarid” for stakeholders. Such analysis also allowed to correlate “positive” and “insufficient” outcomes found in public policies to distinct groups of society, leading to a more general discussion of Development in the BSA, in light of climate change.
This research is grounded on the concepts of development, climate change, social-ecological systems and resilience, and it is based on published material, primary documents and fieldwork. Resilience of the Semiarid’s whole social-ecological system was considered, with a focus on the specified resilience (FOLKE, CARPENTER, et al., 2010) “of what, to what” (CARPENTER, WALKER, et al., 2001). In this context, meaning ‘of’ family farmers (a particular part of the system) related ‘to’ climate change (a particular control variable in the system), ‘to’ one or more identified kinds of shocks, in this case, - desertification, prolonged periods of droughts, increases in temperature, biodiversity loss, power structure, etc.
Indicators in this multi-dimensional field are highly debatable (VEIGA, 2010; LAWN, 2006) and the choice here was to use the perception of the interviewees and literature review based on available secondary sources supported by primary sources (mostly
government and social society reports). The reflexive behavior of people in respect to the impact of policies on them and their use of ecosystems is drawn out in discussions with stakeholders, as proposed in the analysis of resilience from Walker et al. (2002). Ex-post evaluations were a large limitation found during the research and confirmed during the interviews, as most governmental programs did not conduct or publicize them.
Methods adopted were participatory observation, individual unsystematic observation, and open and semi-structured interviews (Appendix 1, 2 and 3), commonly used in most qualitative exploratory researches (MARCONI e LAKATOS, 2003). Interviews were considered fundamental to complement the insights gained from the analysis of available scientific literature on the subject and to gain knowledge on stakeholders’ perception of change. There were two semi-structured questions grounded on the overall research used in the interviews: (1) What have been the most beneficial public policies for family farmers in the BSA? (2) What are the major challenges for family farmers in the BSA? These questions allowed us to evaluate whether public policies addressed major challenges for family farmers, increasing their resilience to climate change and other stressors. Most cited answers are gathered in Appendix 4. Interviews’ answers were framed according to the main questions instead of being allocated by institutions. This is due to the various spontaneous citations mentioned by interviewees, hard to gathered under the same institution.
The semi-structured method was chosen to allow interviewees to define on their own what policies and challenges they considered relevant to mention, without being induced by specific questions. Using this method it was possible to cross answers to check if there was a common ground between different stakeholders, as well as to comprehend their different biases. Techniques used to register the interviews were voice and written record. The frequently resulting answers are summed up and available in the Results Section and in Appendix 4.
There were 24 interviews conducted with: one government authority of each Ministry - of Environment, of Integration and of Tourism; with the Research Supervisor of the Tourism Superintendence of Alagoas state; six public employees from the
Superintendência de Desenvolvimento do Nordeste (SUDENE, Superintendence for the
(FUNDAJ, Joaquim Nabuco Foundation), two researchers from the Instituto Nacional do
Semiárido (INSA, National Institute of the Semiarid), one employee of the Departamento Nacional de Obras Contra as Secas (DNOCS, National Department of Work Against
Drought) and three public employees from Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation); and with NGOs employees, (three) from the Articulação Nacional do Semiárido (ASA, National Articulation of the Semiarid), (one from) the CAATINGA, (one) from the Associação Caatinga and the director of the Instituto Regional da Pequena Agropecuária Apropriada (IRPAA, Appropriate Regional Small Farmers' Institute). They were performed by phone, email and in person, for about one or two hours each. Detailed information can be found in Appendix 1, while the % of interviews per sector are seen in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2- Interviews divided by sectors
The sample size was based on the discussions on the topic in the qualitative analyzes. ADLER, ADLER, et al (2012) suggest up to 30 interviews for a thesis. This number is related to the idea of saturation of answers, in which it seems to the interviewer that opinions begin to repeat themselves. This actually occurred during the research, consolidating the answers found. It was also considered how long it takes to get good interviews and the ease of access to the possible interviewees (FLICK e BERLIN, 2012). The fact that interviews were semi-structured and there was not one single question to be answered called for less interviewees.
Institutions were selected based on their relevance, which was previously investigated.
Government 46% Research Institutes 29% NGOs 25%
These key institutions have been playing an important role in the development of the Semiarid Northeast and are commonly acknowledged by literature and people. Some are described in the Public Policies chapter.
Our goal was to engage with the main stakeholders in the field to learn their perceptions and experiences. The interviewees were selected based on their job positions, referrals from other interviewees and availability. They hold political and technical positions, ranging from directors of well-known institutions to recently hired fieldwork agents. We had the chance to speak with professionals responsible for complex engineering constructions, as well as with young, middle-term and long-term career employees.
Data collection included individual unsystematic observation (MARCONI e LAKATOS, 2003) during the attendance of three seminars- 3rd International Seminar of Coexistence with the Semiarid (Piranhas, Alagoas. Nov, 2016), 2010-2016 Drought in the Brazilian Semiarid (Fortaleza, Ceará. Dec. 2016), and Productive Coexistence with Droughts: technological solutions and action strategies (Petrolina, Pernambuco. Mar. 2017), and
individual participatory observation in the three-week workshop promoted by the
Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento e Sustentabilidade (IABS, Brazilian Institute of
Development and Sustainability) in the Alagoas Sertão, Brazil (2016), as part of a Coexisting with the Semiarid Program.
The workshop was an immersion program where participants, including the author of this thesis, had to live in the 70 hectares of the Xingó center (city of Piranhas) during three weeks in November, 2016, with approximately 40 other participants who were family farmers, employees of public institutions for the Semiarid region, agricultural technical assistants, academics, networkers, policy makers and activists. During the workshop, participants discussed adversities and opportunities found in the BSA; productive activities; the diffusion of social practices and technologies; and technical assistance provided by public programs. The program included visits to sites where social technologies were being implemented, such as units of cisterns for rainwater harvesting and bio-constructions; and where family farmers were involved in promoting sustainable local technologies referred by them as social technologies. In addition to these activities, there were also opportunities to visit traditional technologies implemented by the government, specifically hydropower sites.
This experience in the field has allowed to engage in local discussions and field visits to a Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (INCRA, National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform) settlement, meeting members of the Movimento dos
Trabalhadores Rurais sem Terra (MST, Landless Workers’ Movement), and to the
Jacaré-Curituba community settlement.
1.5 Thesis Framework
This thesis is structured as follows:
An Introduction to the subject contains the research problem, the thesis objective and general assumption. It also includes the presentation of the Methodology and of the thesis framework.
In chapter two is presented the conceptual framework, discussing what Sertão and Semiarid mean and how the latter is a social-ecological system. Resilience to climate change is defined here and showed in the perspective of family farmers.
The literature review consists of the following four chapters. Chapter three exposes the social and climatic characterization of the Brazilian Semiarid region, and its natural and political constraints that forged the region vulnerability. Its strengths are also highlighted
to avoid the mistake of taking the Sertão for granted as an unfeasible place to live.
Chapter four is dedicated to present public policies from 1877 to 2010, and chapter five illustrates civil society´s response to them, through the emergence of the paradigm and guidelines of Coexisting with the Semiarid.
Chatper six is dedicated to bring to light development theories and climate change in the context of the Sertão. The development debate is presented from an international political economy perspective to bring out the the evolution of the concept of development over time, starting with political economy theorists, particularly Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx, to reach development theories of the twentieth century. It is then shown how the discourse on climate change became part of the development debate and the development proposals for the Brazilian Semiarid region.
The seventh chapter presents Results and Discussion, including limitations of public policies, CSA potential to promote climate change and non-climatic resilience and the implications of the findings for other Semiarid regions, particularly for Africa. The last chapter summarizes the conclusions and recommendations of this work.
1.6 Contributions to Knowledge
A major common concern regards the impact of climate change on Semiarid lands (FRASER, DOUGILL, et al., 2011). This research aims to contribute to improve efforts promoting climate resilience in the Semiarid regions by generating a critical analysis of public policies and the CSA model in Brazil, with a view to influence decision makers as they develop future strategies. Most cited concerns in Semiarid regions around the world are similar to those we see in the Sertão (HUDSON, 1987), although their conditions vary greatly: the soil, the climate, the social factors, availability of mechanization and of labor and type of livestock, to mention a few. They result from a complex interaction of population growth rates, climate, and environmental responses linked to human activities ((IPCC), 2001). Lessons learnt from the Brazilian Semiarid experience can help other Semiarid regions to adapt to the multiple adversities faced by them, including climate change. Its contribution can be especially relevant to Semiarid regions of African countries more alike the BSA.
It also contributes to the incipient scientific literature on the Coexisting with the Semiarid topic. Resilience thinking applied to social-ecological systems from the family farmers’ perspective in the Brazilian Semiarid responds to the urge for addressing these concerns, as declared by Harvey (2010) and Pelling and Manuel-Navarette (2011). It can identify pathways for transformation in social systems and by extension social-ecological systems.
The understanding of the Brazilian Semiarid area as a social-ecological system is a major contribution. By doing so, this work moves beyong the climatic classification into a systems analysis and links public policies to the Semiarid as a climatic classification and Coexisting with the Semiarid to the system of the Semiarid. Further more, this thesis also
aims to contribute with information and insights to the Brazilian debate on how to change the design and implementation of public policies targeted at the Brazilian Semiarid region.
2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Three main concepts are particularly relevant to this study: Semiarid, Social-ecological systems and Resilience. Nonetheless, because there is considerable confusion in the terms Semiarid, Northeast and Sertão, it is first clarified their differences and showed how they erroneously turned into equivalents. During this chapter, we also present the terms “traditional technologies” and “social technologies”, and briefly describe the concept of a paradigm, in view of the work presented as the Coexisting with the Semiarid paradigm.
2.1 Northeast, the Sertão and the Semiarid area
There has been significant misuse of the terminology Northeast, Semiarid and Sertão as interchangeable in literature and speech in Brazil [ie. Plano Estratégico de Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Semi-Árido (PDSA, Semiarid Sustainable Development Strategic Plan) (MI, 2005)] The Northeast is one of the five geographical-political macro-regions in Brazil which encompasses nine states: Alagoas, Bahia, Ceará, Maranhão, Paraíba, Piauí, Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Norte and Sergipe. It is subdivided in four areas, named: Meio-Norte, Agreste, Zona da Mata and Sertão. Because the media focus almost exclusively on droughts and the socio-economic difficulties found in part of the Northeast, predominantly in the Sertão, these two areas are frequently confused and used to express one another.
Besides representing a geographical- political sub-division, Sertão also carries a cultural significance. The word was used, during the colonial period, to indicate unexplored and little inhabited portions of land in the country side in the Northeast and other regions, as a synonym of hinterland or backland. But, within time, it became closely associated with the Northeast Semiarid region, considerably due to several distinguished literature authors who spread through their novels the image of a romanticized Northeast Semiarid
Sertão. In doing so, it led people to refer to cultural aspects of that specific Sertão simply
as Sertão. Artistic work, cultural manifestations and sertanejo´s (people from the Sertão) way of life compose the new meaning of the word “Sertão” and became part of the Northeast cultural heritage.
“Semiarid” is an international climatic reference mostly used according to the Köppen2
(and revised as Köppen- Geiger in 19613) or Thornthwaite4 climate classification systems,
accounting for precipitation levels below potential evapotranspiration. In Brazil, the Semiarid region is located in the Northeast part of the country is present in all Northeast states. It also includes the north of Minas Gerais, located in the macro-region of the Southeast. There have been three major political- geographical delimitations of the Semiarid region in Brazil and some changes in its criteria, the latter in 2017 (Appendix 5).
There has also been some attempt to sub-divide the Semiarid itself. This is an acknowledgement of the territorial hetereogenicity. The sub-regions were differentiated according to its production potentialities, “Sertões de Dentro” (Inner Sertão) and “Sertões
de Fora” (Outer Sertão)5, later defined by their economic ocupation, such as livestock,
mining and agriculture (MI, 2005). The subsequent classifications were based on agrarian activities and areas considered to be geostrategic by the government. Since 2003, the Northeast Semiarid area has been subdivided in three geostrategic units- Sertão do Norte,
Ribeira do São Francisco e Sertão do Sul (Figure 3). The latter is the largest in area and
population (table 2).
2 (KÖPPEN, 1936; KÖPPEN, 1918)
3 (PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF CARINTHIA; CLIMATE CHANGE AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES GROUP)
4 (THORNTHWAITE, 1943)
5 Delimitations of the Inner and Outer Sertão in literature also refer to the sides of the Bahia and Pernambuco states divided by the river (RÊGO, 2016). Capistrano de Abreu (ABREU, 1998) attribute Sertões de Fora to pernambucanos (those who were born in Pernambuco state), which in his conception comprised from Paraíba to Acaracu, in Ceará. Sertões de Dentro were the baianos (those who were born in Bahia state), englobing the region from the São Francisco river until the southwest of Maranhão.
Figure 3- PDSA Geostrategic units: Sertão do Norte, Ribeira do São Francisco and Sertão do Sul.
Source: PDSA, cartogram 2.2 (MI, 2005)
Table 1- Geostrategic Areas of the Northeast Semiarid: Basic Data
Geoestrategic areas Municipalities % of total BSA Area (Km2) % of total
BSA Total population in 2000 % of total BSA
Sertão do Norte 307 27 328,822.80 33,6 6,534,121 31,3 Ribeira do São Francisco 126 11 214,157.41 21,9 2,810,317 13,4 Sertão do Sul 702 62 435,474.12 44,5 11,533,487 55,3 New Semiarid delimitation (2005) 1135 100 978,134.33 100 20,877,925 100
Source: PDSA, table 2.1 (MI, 2005)
These three units are separated in nine development sub-regions- Sertão do Piauí, Sertão
do Apodi, Sertão do Araripe, Sertão de Borborema, Ribeira do Médio São Francisco, Ribeira do Submédio São Francisco, Ribeira do Baixo São Francisco, Sertão de Canudos, and Sertão de Contas (Figure 4). The nine development sub-regions are the
focus of the priority development actions of the Semiarid Sustainable Development Strategic Plan (PDSA) (MI, 2005).
Figure 4- PDSA Development sub-regions: Sertão do Piauí, Sertão do Apodi, Sertão do Araripe, Sertão de Borborema, Ribeira do Médio São Francisco, Ribeira do Submédio São Francisco, Ribeira do Baixo São Francisco, Sertão de Canudos, and Sertão de Contas
Source: PDSA, cartogram 2.4 (MI, 2005)
Areas inserted in the Brazilian Semiarid delimitation receive a 25% compliance bonus from the Fundo Constitucional de Financiamento do Nordeste (FNE, Northeast Constitutional Financing Fund (in comparison to the 15% in the rest of the Northeast) and at least 50% of all resources from this fund invested in productive activities. In 2005, there were R$ 2.5 billions or around $800 millions dollars (conversion rate from 2017) available to that end (BRASIL, 2005). In addition, several governmental programs are oriented to benefit these areas (programs are described in Chapter 4). These financial benefits turn regions classified as Semiarid politically attractive.
The common use in the Portuguese language refers to the Brazilian Northeast territory of a Semiarid climate simply as “Semiarid”. It might be related to the fact that there is a clear political- territorial delimitation, similar to states, and a tendency to homogenize all inserted territories by its climate, which by the way, varies quite a bit in between them. As it happened to the term “Sertão”, the concept of “Semiarid” was extended beyond its original meaning as a climatic definition to embrace cultural, environmental, social and
political aspects. It regards the dynamics and life found in the region. As set by Malvezzi (2007), the Brazilian Semiarid is climate, vegetation, soil, sun, water, people, music, art, religion, politics, history and culture. When new territories are added to the Semiarid delimitation, they bring along their regional particularities.
This topic intended to argued that our research identified some misuse in the terminology Northeast, Sertão and Semiarid. Northeast and Sertão are not interchangeably, once the first refers to a much wider area (see Figure 7, delimitation of the Caaatinga biome, BSA and Northeast). The Semiarid is sometimes confused with the “Northeast” because it geographically overlaps the latter (SILVINO, VIGLIO e FERREIRA, 2016), but they do not represent the same territory. Their use as a synonym is a reductionism and endorses a misguided popular imagination. The exception is to compare “Sertão” to “Semiarid”, in view of the fluid characteristic of the language which allowed them to evolve into new similar meanings, beyond hinterland and a climatic reference. Therefore, they are referred to as synonyms during this thesis.
2.2 Semiarid and social ecological systems
Literature has focused on social, economic, and political systems in isolation from their biophysical surroundings, or has considered the environment as merely a backdrop for the functioning of social systems (COLLINS, CARPENTER, et al., 2011) approximately until the 2000s. Community ecology studies are built on natural ecosystems, neglecting human beings as agents of change. To consider how people use resources and affect plant populations and landscapes can be useful in building models that aggregate a greater number of variables (ALBUQUERQUE e ANDRADE, 2002).
Natural systems and social systems are both complex systems, but adding the complexity of interactions between them leads us to complex social-ecological systems. Their linkage has become more evident for researchers working in interdisciplinary fields as drivers (climate change, unsustainable consumption patterns, destruction of natural forestry coverage, etc) increasingly affect ecosystem services and put at risk future generations.
Elements of the Semiarid combined- its people, the soil, the dry forest, etc - constitute an integrated system, in which the social and the environment are part of an interconnected
body. We classify this interaction as a social-ecological system (SES), described as linked systems of people and nature, in which humans are understood as part of nature as opposed to a separated system (figure 5) (BERKES e FOLKE, 1998). Family farmers are part of this system, affecting and affected by its climate, fauna, flora, biome and by each other.
Figure 5- People in Social-Ecological Systems
Source: (BERKES e FOLKE, 1998)
A SES can be defined as an ecological system essentially related to and affected by one or more social systems. As for an ecological system, Anderies, Janssen and Ostrom (2004) describe it as an interdependent system of organisms or biological units, while social systems are interdependent systems of organisms. They refer to SES as “the subset of social systems in which some of the interdependent relationships among humans are mediated through interactions with biophysical and non-human biological units” (ANDERIES, JANSSEN e OSTROM, 2004, p. 3). Social-ecological systems address biophysical and social drivers, constraints and factors that frequently interact as complex, nested systems at multiple scales (organizational, special and temporal), using critical resources in continuous adaptation (REDMAN, 2004).
To understand biophysical processes is critical to better manage ecological resources and the dynamics of coupled social and ecological systems, although a degree of uncertainty always exists, (i.e. biophysical disturbances and their effects linked to climate change) (ANGELSTAM, ANDERSSON, et al., 2013). Walker et al. (2002, p. 1) point out that uncertainties are difficult to characterize because of three factors: 1) key drivers are unpredictable, i.e. climate and technological change. Many key drivers change in a non-linear way; 2) human action in response to forecasts is reflexive and people can change
predictions through their reactions; 3) the system may change faster than the forecasting models can be revised. This may occur specially during unstable periods of transition, so forecasts are most unreliable in precisely the situations where they are most wanted. The high complexity of SES is one of the obstacles, likely the biggest, to forecasting future scenarios and outcomes in a meaningful way.
As SES reach out multiple scientific disciplines, frameworks are effective tools as they provide diagnostic, descriptive, and prescriptive research and a set of common language and elements (MCGINNIS e OSTROM, 2014). The SES framework was initially proposed by Ostrom (2007) with the goal of forging a common vocabulary and a logical linguistic structure among scholars (MCGINNIS e OSTROM, 2014). Anderies, Janssen and Ostrom (2004, p. 2) highlight three issues to be taken into account in a SES framework: 1) cooperation and potential for collective action must be maintained within
the social system, 2) ecological systems are dynamic, as are the rules of the games that agents play amongst themselves, and 3) ecological systems can occupy multiple stable states6 and move rapidly between them. Among its contribution, social-ecological systems framework provides assistance in the analysis and assessment of ecosystem services and their value to society.
The following structure is grounded on the cooperative aspect of social systems as fundamental (Figure 6). Here, resources (A in Fig. 6) supply communities or individuals (B in Fig. 6), that is, multiple resource users. Public infrastructure providers (C in Fig. 6) can also be resource users, but not necessarily. Those are decision-makers and their multiple forms of governance influence resource users directly. Public infrastructure refers to physical (engineer works) and social (governance, rules) capital. Arrow 7 (Fig. 6) represents external disturbances related to biophysical distresses that impact the resource (A in Fig. 6) and public infrastructure (D in Fig. 6). Arrow 8 (Fig. 6) also refers to external disturbances, but related to socioeconomic changes that impact resource users and the public infrastructure providers (ANDERIES, JANSSEN e OSTROM, 2004).
6 The state of a system refers to a particular instant in time and the collection of values of the state variables at that time (WALKER, CARPENTER, et al., 2002).
Figure 6- A Conceptual Model of a SES
Source: (ANDERIES, JANSSEN e OSTROM, 2004)
A is mostly affected by B through the impact caused by humans and the local fauna in the environment. The relation from B to A is based on direct extraction and availability of resources. From B to C, interaction is mostly based on voting for and monitoring performance of providers; access to resources and infrastructure. Life conditions of resource users (B) vary according to appropriate policies from C. Responsibilities from C to B are to elaborate and execute policies and contribute with resources. The link between C and D is building initial structure; keep regular maintenance; monitoring and enforcing rules. A is impacted by the infrastructure brought on by D, just as the dynamics of resource-resource users (arrow 1 in Fig. 6). B and D are also interrelated, through workforce, (community) monitoring and creation of parallel infrastructure.
The above SES conceptual model applied to the rural BSA in a simple approach would present the elements found in table 1(adding a fauna resource users’ category). Although there are several elements not included bellow as the BSA is a complex system, table 3 presents the major components related to resources, resource users, public infrastructure providers and public infrastructure:
Table 2- The BSA According to the SES Model Found in Figure 5 Categories BSA A. Resource Land Water Timber Fruits/Vegetables/ Tubers Wildlife
B. Resource users (people)
Family farmers
Land owners of large properties Tourists
Local communities
B. Resouce users (fauna)
Cattle Goats Birds Fishes Bees Aligators Tatu-bola (armadillo) White-wing pigeon
C. Public infrastructure providers
Local government Federal government CSA Civil society Council of local users’ association D. Public Infrastructure Dams Irrigation canals Roads Network of farmers Personalized farming plans
Source: elaborated by the author
Most resources (A) found in the BSA can be described as land, water, timber, fruits/vegetables/ tubers and wildlife. These are used as a survival strategy, especially through demand for agriculture commodities, or leisure by family farmers, land owners of large properties, local communities and tourists (B- people), driving Resource- Resource Users relations (arrow 1, Fig.5). Local fauna (B- fauna), both domestic and wildlife, generates environmental impacts through greenhouse gases, land erosion and deforestation. Positively, they assist the ecosystem in supplying services that are fundamental to resource users (examples of animals were selected based on their relevance and do not represent the totality of fauna in the BSA).
Management of the negative impacts caused by B can be provided by public infrastructure providers (C), which can be government bodies or civil society. Public infrastructure (D) to address these issues consist in dams, irrigation canals, roads, personalized farming plans and less engineering solutions, such as network of farmers and seed stock, among others.
External forces on resource and infrastructure are represented by Arrow 7 (Fig. 5), which
in the BSA case would be first and foremost the droughts and soil erosion. The region is also affected by heavy rains in specific regions and by climate change. External forces on social actors (arrow 8, Fig. 5) are represented by major changes in political system, migration, commodity prices, and regulation (partially based on (ANDERIES, JANSSEN e OSTROM, 2004).
The SES of the BSA it is a human-dominated system. Commonly, the natural disturbance regime in most ecosystems, including loss of biodiversity, deforestation (land-use change), control of floods and diversion of rivers (management decisions) has been altered by human activities (COLLINS, CARPENTER, et al., 2011), causing, among several consequences, climatic change. This is occurring at a faster pace than previously experienced, putting at risk the current social-ecological system of the BSA. Considering these events, it is crucial to explore pathways by which it is possible to generate resilience for the social-ecological system of the Brazilian Semiarid region.
2.3 Resilience
2.3.1 Concept debate
Resilience concepts have been applied in many fields [i.e. Ecology-Holling (1973), Berkes & Folke (1998); physics- Young, (1807), Nash, (1982); psychology - Rutter (1985), Yunes, (2001); social-ecological systems- Carpenter et al (2001), Berkes, Colding & Folke (2003), Adger et al (2005), Folke, (2006), Nelson, (2007), Béné, (2014); community development- Berkes & Ross, (2013)] carrying several meanings, but recent definitions tend to highlight similar elements and understand resilience as an ability as opposed to an outcome (BÉNÉ, NEWSHAM, et al., 2014).
According to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (2007), resilience is "the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and operating modes, self-organizational skills and the ability to adapt to stress and change ” or as the “ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner” (IPCC, 2012). Similarly, the Resilience Alliance definition points to "the capacity of a social-ecological system to absorb or withstand perturbations and other stressors such that the system remains within the same regime, essentially maintaining its structure and functions" [Holling (1973),Gunderson & Holling (2002), Walker, et al., (2004)].
In general terms, resilience is described as the ability to recover from a shock, whereas the impact of the shock, which can be of economic, physical, ecological or political nature, is proportional to the receptor's vulnerability, (vulnerability) defined as the degree of exposure (ANGEON e BATES, 2015). As Berkes and Ross (2013) suggest, resilience is the capacity of the system to continually change and adapt and yet remain within critical thresholds. Moreover, it refers to the capacity of an individual or community to cope with stress, overcome adversity or adapt positively to change (KAPLAN, 1999), permeating the field of governance when related to social, economic, political and cultural boundaries of human adaptation to change. Walker et al. (WALKER, CARPENTER, et al., 2002) further argue that resilience (policies) management aims at preventing an SES from moving into undesirable configurations, understanding where and how resilience can be lost or gained in a SES.
Adger et al (2011) claim that there are multiple sources of resilience in most systems, therefore policies should identify such sources and strengthen capacities to adapt and learn. Nevertheless, it is not simple to define drivers that generate resilience and therefore reduce vulnerability in complex interactions like social-ecological systems. Resilience here is considered an important property in which people play a pivotal role extracting from and impacting the environment (RESILIENCE ALLIANCE), linking ecosystems and people as integrated social-ecological systems in which social systems and ecosystems are recognized as coupled, interdependent, and coevolving (BERKES e ROSS, 2013). Such complexity makes it hard to measure and define resilience, an issue that continues to challenge many scholars (ADGER, 2000). Thus, what are the stresses
and disturbances in the Brazilian Semiarid? What promotes resilience and what are the opportunities presented by disturbances?
As stressed by several authors (FOLKE, 2006; BARBIER, 2008), resilience goes beyond "the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization, learning and adaptation” (RESILIENCE ALLIANCE) into opportunities that disturbance opens up in terms of recombination of evolved structures and processes, renewal of the system and emergence of new trajectories. (FOLKE, 2006). Social–ecological resilience, for instance, is characterized by the interplay between disturbance and reorganization, sustaining and developing. It is focused on adaptive capacity, transformability, learning and innovation in the context of integrated system feedback and cross-scale dynamic interactions (FOLKE, 2006).
Accordingly, resilience requires to work with several fronts, which are closely related to sustainability. To compreheend the loss, creation, and maintenance of resilience through the process of co-discovery (by scientists, policy makers, practitioners, stakeholders, and citizens) is the core of sustainability (WALKER, CARPENTER, et al., 2002; GUNDERSON e HOLLING, 2002). As Holling and Walker (2003) suggest, “a resilient social-ecological system is synonymous with a region that is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable”.
Rather than a unanimous concept employed to social-ecological systems, resilience is sometimes criticized in literature for its troublesome application to systems in which some components are consciously designed, as opposed to self-organized. As resilience and adaptive capacity are interconnected, some authors ask the question of what is the cost and how to design for adaptive capacity. Anderies, Janssen and Ostrom (2004) do not abandon the concept of resilience, but propose to apply a similar, but what they consider more suitable, concept, “robustness” to SES. They argue it emphasizes the cost–benefit trade-offs suited to deal with disruptions, as it is associated with systems designed to cope with uncertainty.
Designed and self-organizing components interact in SES. Notwithstanding, in SES “the majority of components are self organizing (ecological systems, social networks), very few are designed (rules of interaction), and uncertainty is high (experimentation is
difficult or impossible)” (ANDERIES, JANSSEN e OSTROM, 2004, p. 2), therefore the concept of resilience seems appropriate.
2.3.2 Climate change resilience and adaptation in social-ecological systems
Current literature analyses climate change resilience through social-ecological systems thinking, given that the ability of a human society to cope with change may cost greatly to an ecosystem (FOLKE, 2006). Changes in climate affect agriculture, economy, political decisions and how culture is shaped. Thus, resilience framework must be focused on understanding processes of change (ADGER, BROWN, et al., 2011) in its multiple perspectives.
Umar, Musa and Tologbonde (2014, p. 245), citing Folke (2006) and Nelson et al. (2007), describe climate resilience “as the capacity for a social-ecological system to absorb stresses and maintain function in the face of external stresses imposed upon it by climate change, and adapt, reorganize, and evolve into more desirable configurations that improve the sustainability of the system, leaving it better prepared for future climate change impacts”. The resilience approach seems appropriate in the context of climate change for it underlines nonlinear dynamics, thresholds, uncertainty and surprise (FOLKE, 2006), characteristics found in climatic scenarios. It also emphasizes how periods of gradual change interplay with periods of rapid change and how such dynamics interact across temporal and spatial scales (FOLKE, 2006).
Climate resilience of family farmers addresses the vulnerability that communities currently have in regards to the impacts of climate change comprising social, economic, political, environmental, technological and cultural strategies. It involves issues of governance, participatory approaches, social organization, adaptation and transformation. When resilience involves societal and biophysical factors, the concept is similar to adaptive capacity, being frequently used interchangeably (WALKER, CARPENTER, et
al., 2002) as the ability to develop and implement effective adaptation strategies, or to
react to dangers and stress in order to reduce the likelihood or size of constraints. From that derived the concept of adaptive governance, an institutional response to challenges
characterized by iterative learning, allowing that individuals to cope with uncertainty and change (FOLKE, T., et al., 2005; ANGELSTAM, ANDERSSON, et al., 2013).
While in natural systems adaptation is reactive, in human systems it also can be anticipatory. Adaptation to climate change is an adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects. Among the types of adaptation there are: anticipatory or proactive adaptation- adaptation that occurs before the impacts of climate change are observed; autonomous or spontaneous adaptation - adaptation that does not constitute a conscious response to climatic stimuli but is triggered by ecological changes in natural systems and by the market or welfare changes in human systems; planned adaptation - adaptation that is the result of a deliberate policy decision, based on an awareness that conditions have changed or are about to change and that action is needed to return, maintain or achieve a desired state (IPCC, 2007).
Nature can adapt to the new conditions, but reactive adaptation may bring unexpected consequences and a great cost to the system, which can be avoided through planned and anticipatory adaptation. Adapting to climate change involves developing strategies, policies and measures (GEF, 2004). It requires the ability to mobilize physical and social elements able to respond and implement strategies to cope with current or future events using resources like physical capital, technology, infrastructure, information, scientific and technical knowledge, institutions, the capacity to learn, and social capital (ADGER, BROWN, et al., 2011). Regions with limited infrastructure, resources, low levels of technology, information and skills, and inequitable empowerment and access to resources are highly vulnerable to climate change damages, just as they are more vulnerable to other stresses ((IPCC), 2001). Therefore, the capacity to adapt varies considerably among regions, classes and over time.
It also depends on the stability and efficiency of cultural, economic, social and governance institutions, which have the power to facilitate or restrict the response of human systems (GEF, 2004). Those can be carried out by various group of actors such as knowledge carriers, stewards, innovators and leaders, or bridging organizations of multilevel institutions, considered central by Folke et al (2005).
Nevertheless, there is a lack of conceptual clarity on the relationships between adaptation, adaptive capacity and resilience in literature (BAHADUR, IBRAHIM and TANNER, 2010 as cited in BÉNÉ, NEWSHAM, et al., 2014) Adaptive capacity is an aspect of